Lurker > ToukaOone

are we witnessing a possible historic trend that maybe could be causally linked to a general decrease in uploading activity at some point in the future?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

are we witnessing the historic collapse of VGMotD as we speak? dun dun dun

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Oh well lame.

Well, I guess I can use this information as an investment in life insurance and reuse that to try and prevent information theoretic death so.....

Without looking anything up, I'll probably pay like 20k (-$20k) given the information I have now about my likely chances of death in comparison to my expected return on cashing out a nice life insurance policy. This is probably really naive and not based on anything but it's a start!

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Hm, when you say "death" do you mean your heart stops, or information theoretic death? Because I would pay good money if it was the latter.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

wait how does this interact with inflation

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

So... what happens if the concept of a minimum wage job is abolished?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Gwindor posted...

Teleportation the star-trek way is destroying you, and building a new copy of you. The technology could just as easily be used to make a copy of you at a location.

If that's what we're talking about, then no. I would never do that. The moment I did, I would die.

If it's something like portal, then yes. Gates like that would be fantastically useful.

So wait, you're saying that you are cells?

Well you're far more at risk right now, where trillions of your cells are dying and getting replaced. Within one year, none of the same atoms you're composed of now will remain. Wouldn't your anti teleportation preference also a strong desire to invent a time stopping device so that none of your cells are replaced?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

damn you kurzzweeiilll

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Don't use rosetta stone. It's really, really terrible.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Talent is overrated.

Or rather, talent is a placeholder word that's about as useful as "magic". Why is someone good at something? Magic!

With other words such as hard work, intelligence or passion you at least can say something else. Hard work implies significant time was spent doing something. A short talk with someone or a test is sufficient to convince most people of intelligence and well... you can always ask the person what their preferences are and how strongly they hold them, correct?

Sure you can say that "talent" is just means something like "genes" or "tiger mom", in which case why not use those words instead of talent?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Another failed Sir Chris project.

"Intimidation tactics". I see drakky awards points for the effort but results remain unmentioned.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Which jobs are those? How do you know that women are the cause when increasing automation can also be a cause? You predicted that one possible cause of the destruction of the nuclear family is a lack of salary correct? Then that means for occupations where real wages have risen in the last 40 years and the preservation of a nuclear family is no better would be weak evidence against your theory, correct?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

they work because of some dumb science reason EINSTEIN

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Anytime someone explains Schrodinger's cat in a noncomedic fashion.

I die.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

For one, I don't think it's certain at all. For two, you shouldn't be specifying flat dollar amounts; you should be offering odds. For three, you'd need to think up some way to precommit both parties to paying the bet on time. For four, if your family's life savings are only 1k I would advise against taking bets like that.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

My point remains the same though, put up a bet with some fanboy, invest in it through other channels or try to monetize it through some other channel. If that piece of information really so obvious whatever price you pay to profit off of it surely must be worth it, correct?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

For a loss, the reward is approximately: 16 IP + 1.405 per minute IP

From LoL wiki

Assuming a 25 minute surrender, it's 51IP. However, the average game length is about 35 minutes, so 65IP. Applying the same logic to wins, it'll be 97. But I don't know the distribution of game lengths. So my IP count was high by about 20IP, but in order for that to be canceled by win of the day, you'd say that you played 8 losing games before a streak of 8 winning games on the same day (so that 50/50 win ratio is preserved). Probably not a common occurrence.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

I'm not ignoring losses. Or rather, I'm ignoring both losses and wins of the day. On average losing nets you 70~IP and winning 110~, for a 90IP average on a 50/50 split. First win of the day gets you 150IP. So in order for you to lowball you have to claim that you have to lose frequently on solo days and win long streaks on the same, despite the matchmaking specifically adjusting against this. If we also assume that the player is good, they're going to have win ratios substantially tilted away from 50 toward high win rates, so I feel like I'm lowballing IP gains.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

It doesn't matter. In a competitive scene that's a terrible system. Everyone should have access to all of the same characters. You can't have quality competition if everyone doesn't have access to every character.

I've heard this tossed around a lot. Is there any basis for this? Fighting games with secret characters have existed for quite a while. So evidence for this theory would be secret characters remaining untiered for quite a while after release, tier lists take a lot longer to settle down when there's more secret characters or some other measure of "quality competition" correlated with number of secret characters.

"Quality competition" intuitively appears to obey the Pareto principle. A disproportionate number of good strategies come from a tiny fraction of people (the good players) And intuitively you don't get to be a good player until you've played a substantial number of games. (assuming about 100~ IP per game, Decked out rune pages is about 97k, and with 100~ champions and an average cost of 3.5k IP that's 350k, so you need about 450k IP or 4500 games before you 'have' all the game. Do you believe you'd be good enough at DotA to produce better strategies at less than 4.5k games played?).

Even ignoring that, you'd be neglecting the 30-60 dollars you'd be paying for a conventional game, which I presume you believe do have robust strategies, so that shaves off however many games. We're also neglecting the diminishing returns you'd get as you purchase more and more. For example, a lot of people test out the newest champions already, so as a quickly rising competitive player looking to get an edge it's not to your advantage to do what everyone else is doing.

We're also ignoring that in Riot's model, they're going to be drawing in a much bigger player base with the low entry costs and the promise of "rapid growth". Sure you can say that Valve has this model and could do better, but it's not obvious that Valve would do better than Riot (if it is and no one else has your wisdom, go out and buy Valve stock right now. If it's extremely obvious, then why aren't your and everyone you know's life savings in it?)

(Rune page figure from: http://www.reignofgaming.net/blogs/a-different-view/vvinrar/20561-runes-to-win-2-the-essential-rune-kit-for-lolpros champion IP estimate from assuming over half of them are 6300IP)

There are three points where this argument can fall apart:
1) You can say that a good portion of good strategies come from not-as-good players testing things out, and that since they don't get access to the complete game, the overall community is denied a wide variety of choices
2) Almost equivalently, you can claim that players can become good at a point much sooner than 4.5k games played and that the limitations that they experience at and before that point dramatically stifle the game's development. However, that seems more like a call for a lower game number requirement rather an an explicit model change
3) My calculations are lowballing the cost or highballing the IP earnings.

Which is it then TRT?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

If you're going to judge, the least you could do is demand that people give to starving children in Africa or something.

Starving children in Africa don't deserve my money.

Malaria nets and deworming gives more quality adjusted life years per dollar donated; what starves children in Africa is neither lack of funding nor lack of food. It's simple logistics. The charity organizations simply aren't organized well enough (or the environment isn't conducive enough) for the food to get to the kids.

People just aren't interested in what purpose their money is put toward see. They just want to show off "see! I'm a feminist/anti feminist/compassionate soul" etc. etc. etc.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Card Maturity
Mature Cards: 1340(81.7%)
Young Cards: 290(17.7%)
New Cards: 10 (0.6%)
Average Interval: 2.5 months

Oh ya ashe are you satisfied with yer progress

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Erugios posted...

"Researching on the internet" is entirely different than actually immersing yourself in another culture.

Last I checked, becoming a more cultured person was generally a good thing

Really? Where did you check this?

Is it the illustrious common sense store?

Dammit they keep telling me they're out of Empiricism and try to fob off dirty Unquestioned Assumptions onto me. Absolutely no respect given to their customers ugh.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

I don't need to have taken a debate class to know that there isn't a visible reason in that post.

I'm going to guess that you're a fan of some type of moral nonrealism (as in, morality isn't a law that we can find somewhere in the universe).

In which case, you still can talk about how humans have become deluded enough to believe that morality exists, or why do some people adopt some moral systems rather than others or, how we can implement specific branches of morality that people believe in etc. etc. etc. Those are all complex questions yes, and they may not have good answers, but surely there has to be a plan of attack on how to answer those questions too, right?

Or your objection could be to the "well even if there is a solution, we can't expect there to be a consensus!". But then you'd have to answer why for everything we consider "solved" that we typically do expect consistency among experts or the form of the solution. You don't build a bridge if the calculations come out completely different every single time, why should it be different for any other field, unless you feel like the field is "unsolvable" in which case why toss people uselessly onto an unsolvable problem?

Perhaps ethics is a uniquely bad example, pick your poison: Nature of the universe, cognition, epistemology, theology, human behavior. Either way, the criterion remains the same: How the hell do we know if philosophy is doing anything at all?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Okay can you list the number of things that
1) Philosophy has solved (For example, if philosophy has solved ethics, we should expect there to be consensus on something or some real world effects that extend beyond "oh there's this egghead who said this thingie")
2) Is not incorporated outside of philosophy or incorporated in such a way that it's strictly inferior to philosophy's conception of it (A counterexample would be Kantian (??? Not sure) versus the General Relativistic conception of space)
3) Is important in contexts beyond simple rent-seeking or status jockeying within academia?

The only thing remotely coming to mind right now is the philosophy of cognition, whose practitioners resemble neuroscientists more than philosophers. I can't name anything right now where I would go "Gee, I sure wish we had more philosophers in areas X, Y and Z" as opposed to, let's say, computer scientists, artists, engineers, business people, lawyers or historians.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

I have a unspecified prediction placed on you lopen.

I'll just say that it's heartening to see you catch up!

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Hm, what is everyone else taking? I'm interested in cryptography, algothrithms and the intro to statistics (mostly for learning R)

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Panthera, there's literally an industry that has already gone through that process but no one cares to know about it, for precisely the reasons you said.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

What the hell is a realistic character...? Are we really so desperate to watch people fill out tax forms and worry about mortgage payments?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

A more important question

is why the hell would you talk about tropes or the depiction or whatever when really "having good taste in developed characters" is already a goddamn good filter for trash characters.

But I guess that's too much expect from people so tropes are a good second or whatever.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Can you explain how you think evolution works first?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

We could have higher quality discussions! We don't need other people if we step up our game!

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Raka take this as an important lesson on the psychological progression of infatuation. First it starts off with innocently stealing oatmeal breakfasts, then it escalates into preemptively 'cleaning' external hard drives and finally culminates into the target liking Ciel.

I'm sorry, I went too far there huggles. Still friends?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!